Lubbock’s City Council faced a tough choice with the Tent City rezoning issue, but a bunch of folks made it easy for council members to make the right decision.

At issue was whether the council would come down on the side of the homeless enclave or adjacent property owners.

Tent City, a collection of tents occupied by homeless people on the grounds of a former cotton gin at the corner of Avenue A and 13th Street, came into being after the homeless were run off downtown city property by ordinance and moved off a memorial park at Broadway and Avenue Q by springtime sprinklers and mowers. The gin property was made available to the homeless tent dwellers by Link Ministries.

Adjacent property owners had a reasonable beef with Tent City and its occupants. Establishing a quasi-residential gathering in an area zoned for commercial and heavy manufacturing is clearly an example of incompatible use. It’s perhaps not as egregious as building a factory in a subdivision, but it’s clearly not in line with the intent of zoning rules.

Aside from being in violation of the letter of the law, Tent City also created a situation such laws are designed to prevent — keeping one property owner’s activities from diminishing the value of another person’s property. Adjacent property owners complained their new neighbors brought with them increased concern of theft and damage, as well.

The city’s Planning and Zoning Commission declined to fix the letter-of-the-law problem by rezoning the Tent City property, meaning the homeless encampment would have to leave unless the City Council overruled the zoning panel.

That put the City Council in a bind of sorts. Declining to overrule the zoning panel would meet its obligation to enforce its own rules — and protect adjacent property owners — but would push the homeless back out into the community. That would undo the private-sector solution that had grown out of a council-appointed task force’s mission to find a non-governmental means of meeting the needs of the city’s homeless issue.

Politically, it was a bit of a lose-lose proposition — back the homeless and be seen as ignoring the rules and private business or close the camp and risk the wrath of voters in the city’s spring election. About 2,600 signed a petition urging the council to approve the rezoning request.

It appeared in the days leading up to Thursday’s meeting the conundrum would be punted into the spring with a six-month period for Tent City organizers to develop a solution. That would have prevented the council from owning another beginning-of-winter relocation only a year after moving the homeless away from Mahon Library.

But the City Council was handed a gift Thursday as no one spoke against the rezoning request. An adjacent property owner rose in support of the request.

Chuck Chapman, owner of Chuck Chapman Electric, told the council he was originally against Tent City and was concerned about his property, but came to realize there are more important things to consider.

The council voted 6-0 with Councilman Paul Beane absent to grant the rezoning request. There was much potential for the issue to render many losers and no winners, but that was avoided by people working together toward a reasonable solution. There are conditions Tent City must meet, but the end result is one everyone can live with.

At-a-glance

■ Our position: It appeared a zoning issue would either force a homeless encampment to relocate or deny adjacent property owners their justified expectation zoning laws would be enforced. Shutting down the Tent City would have forced the homeless back out into the community to fend for themselves, undoing a year-long effort to provide a place the homeless to live while transitioning back to traditional living arrangements. It is fortunate the sides found common ground and cleared the way for a solution.

■ Why you should care: Providing a safe environment for the homeless reduces crime against them and others, as well as improving their chances to get back on their feet.

■ For more information: Log on to our website, www.lubbockonline.com, and enter the words “Tent City” in the search box.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

I don't know Mr. Chapman, but if anyone who reads this does, I hope that when you see him, you will give him a pat on the back or good hand-shake and tell him what an uplifting thing he did. No, you can't please all of the people all of the time, but you CAN stand up for what is right, and Mr. Chapman and the Council did in this instance.

We aren't going to end poverty and the homeless dilemma until we resolve our jobs issue. Once there are plenty of jobs available, then we can address the mental and physical issues that cause homelessness.

I wish our politicians in D. C. would pay attention to what the Lubbock City Council did!